Guys, I was away for a little bit with the holidays and a family emergency. Just catching up now. Thanks for the information. Also just to clarify, artificial selection would be "hand picking" plants with certain traits, putting them together, and then hoping the offspring has that trait you are looking for. It's like natural selection..except man is doing it, so they call it "artificial selection" in animals, I don't know about plants, apparently "hybridizing" is more appropriate for the plant.
Also, rainbow, I wasn't saying that you said it was bad, I just mean in general. Because most people, when asked about gmo, would say "oh it's bad for you", but now with this research I am finding that some of it may be bad for you, and some of it might not be bad at all. But one can't help but ask themselves if we should be gene splicing or not. I mean it is "playing god" in a way, but if the things you are producing truly benefit society (not just profits, I mean for the advancement of society as a whole), then we should use it.
I really am shocked the more I learn about the industrial production of food. It's scary really. I can't believe the things that are happening and how much we have "buried" ourselves and become slave to this system. Think about it...if something horrible was to happen, and say all the trucks stopped and we couldn't transport goods. Even if you got the supermarket before it got looted, there is only a couple days worth of food in there for the surrounding area.. MAX.. How crazy is that? We are so ridiculously vulnerable that I can't believe that no one notices this. Homeland security receives BILLIONS of dollars a year in funding, but no one is addressing the VERY serious issues that exist right here in our own neighborhoods.
sorry I got a little off topic there. LOL
Artificial selection does manipulate genetic material. By selecting traits they wanted humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Humans selected from wild wheat and corn the traits they liked, saved and further inbred those traits for generations. Nature may not have chosen those traits. The wheat traits chosen by humans eventually made wheat unable to reproduce without the help of man, so nature may not have chosen to go that route at all. "Traits" are expressions of genes and whether people knew it or not, but selecting for particular attributes they were in reality manipulating genetic material. However, selective breeding takes many generations to accomplish and since some genes are closely associated, they may be inbred in the line as well.
The problems associated with inbreeding lines shows up a lot in purebred dogs. Larger breed dogs tend to have shorter lives, more hip dysplasia, and more problems with bloat. Boston terriers have been deliberately bred for narrow hips which makes it almost necessary for pups to be delivered by c-section. And some breeds have a high incidence of cancer.
White dogs or most white animals that don't live in an arctic environment are rare because it is a color that does occur naturally but does not predominate because in nature it does not help the animal survive. 50% of white cats with blue eyes are deaf as are many white dogs. White cats also should be kept indoors and out of the sun because they are more likely to get skin cancers if they are outside.
Tomatoes, selected for being pretty red and round, are often the least tasty and it seems that tomatoes bred for disease resistance often do so at the expense of flavor. Although recently, there have been more tomatoes being bred for better taste. Market tomatoes varieties were selected for being pretty and also for being able to keep and ship long distances. One of the reasons that Brandywine tomatoes are sold locally. They taste wonderful, but are not pretty and they don't keep well.
Genetic enginineering allows the selection of a particular gene or sequence to be able to breed in a trait that does not take many generations to accomplish and does not breed in other undesirable traits as a byproduct. For some farmers with particularly badly diseased crops, GMO is their best hope of saving their industry. As the world becomes smaller through globalization, pests and diseases are spreading faster than normal. Plants don't have the time to adapt and with a virulent strain, they could be wiped out.
Basil downy mildew was confined mainly to Africa, then it spread to Europe and in 2009 to the U.S. from contaminated seed distributed from Florida all over the country. I used to grow sweet basil all of the time. I can only grow it briefly now and I am still waiting for a cultivar to be traditionally bred that is resistant and still tastes good.
The problems associated with inbreeding lines shows up a lot in purebred dogs. Larger breed dogs tend to have shorter lives, more hip dysplasia, and more problems with bloat. Boston terriers have been deliberately bred for narrow hips which makes it almost necessary for pups to be delivered by c-section. And some breeds have a high incidence of cancer.
White dogs or most white animals that don't live in an arctic environment are rare because it is a color that does occur naturally but does not predominate because in nature it does not help the animal survive. 50% of white cats with blue eyes are deaf as are many white dogs. White cats also should be kept indoors and out of the sun because they are more likely to get skin cancers if they are outside.
Tomatoes, selected for being pretty red and round, are often the least tasty and it seems that tomatoes bred for disease resistance often do so at the expense of flavor. Although recently, there have been more tomatoes being bred for better taste. Market tomatoes varieties were selected for being pretty and also for being able to keep and ship long distances. One of the reasons that Brandywine tomatoes are sold locally. They taste wonderful, but are not pretty and they don't keep well.
Genetic enginineering allows the selection of a particular gene or sequence to be able to breed in a trait that does not take many generations to accomplish and does not breed in other undesirable traits as a byproduct. For some farmers with particularly badly diseased crops, GMO is their best hope of saving their industry. As the world becomes smaller through globalization, pests and diseases are spreading faster than normal. Plants don't have the time to adapt and with a virulent strain, they could be wiped out.
Basil downy mildew was confined mainly to Africa, then it spread to Europe and in 2009 to the U.S. from contaminated seed distributed from Florida all over the country. I used to grow sweet basil all of the time. I can only grow it briefly now and I am still waiting for a cultivar to be traditionally bred that is resistant and still tastes good.
The fact of the matter is there are simply too many people in this planet to feed them all with conventional/organic food. To fail to acknowledge this is not acknowledging the realities of human overpopulation. It is ridiculous to complain incessantly about GMOs when people are starving. It is modern farming techniques that allow us all to continue to live the lifestyle we are living, even if you are not eating them.
As far as I am aware the non GMO label of seeds is pandering as they don't sell GMOs to non commercial farmers.
As far as I am aware the non GMO label of seeds is pandering as they don't sell GMOs to non commercial farmers.
It is true GMO seeds are mainly sold to farmers, but not all of them. I don't worry much about GMO. It has probably been through more testing than any other product, and I do think that people are afraid of something they have no clue about it.
There should truth in advertising and people should know what they are getting. Labeling should be required of GMO products. Now, organic advertises that they are not GMO as a selling point, but there is no requirement or incentive for GMO to do the same. People should be able to make an informed choice.
Better still, before people say they don't want something, they should really investigate for themselves what it is really about.
There should truth in advertising and people should know what they are getting. Labeling should be required of GMO products. Now, organic advertises that they are not GMO as a selling point, but there is no requirement or incentive for GMO to do the same. People should be able to make an informed choice.
Better still, before people say they don't want something, they should really investigate for themselves what it is really about.
-
rainbowgardener
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: TN/GA 7b
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ with you. There is more and more information coming out that says that the ONLY way we are going to be able to feed our population is through organic methods.Peter1142 wrote:The fact of the matter is there are simply too many people in this planet to feed them all with conventional/organic food. To fail to acknowledge this is not acknowledging the realities of human overpopulation. It is ridiculous to complain incessantly about GMOs when people are starving. It is modern farming techniques that allow us all to continue to live the lifestyle we are living, even if you are not eating them.
.
from https://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060 World Watch Institute. The Worldwatch Institute is a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts.There are actually myriad studies from around the world showing that organic farms can produce about as much, and in some settings much more, than conventional farms. Where there is a yield gap, it tends to be widest in wealthy nations, where farmers use copious amounts of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides in a perennial attempt to maximize yields. It is true that farmers converting to organic production often encounter lower yields in the first few years, as the soil and surrounding biodiversity recover from years of assault with chemicals. And it may take several seasons for farmers to refine the new approach.
More importantly, in the world's poorer nations where most of the world's hungry live, the yield gaps completely disappear. University of Essex researchers Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine looked at over 200 agricultural projects in the developing world that converted to organic and ecological approaches, and found that for all the projects-involving 9 million farms on nearly 30 million hectares-yields increased an average of 93 percent. A seven-year study from Maikaal District in central India involving 1,000 farmers cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili, and soy were as much as 20 percent higher on the organic farms than on nearby conventionally managed ones. Farmers and agricultural scientists attributed the higher yields in this dry region to the emphasis on cover crops, compost, manure, and other practices that increased organic matter (which helps retain water) in the soils.
organic farming is a sophisticated combination of old wisdom and modern ecological innovations that help harness the yield-boosting effects of nutrient cycles, beneficial insects, and crop synergies. It's heavily dependent on technology-just not the technology that comes out of a chemical plant.
Last August, there was a good deal of publicity about the fact that the United Nations released a report saying Only Small Farmers and Agroecology Can Feed the World
that is from https://permaculturenews.org/2014/09/26/ ... eed-world/ but that was just the first place I could find it. The UN report was publicized in all kinds of mainstream media.Modern industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, due to the impacts of overlapping environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource availability.
The stark warning comes from the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof Hilal Elver, in her first public speech since being appointed in June.
“Food policies which do not address the root causes of world hunger would be bound to failâ€, she told a packed audience in Amsterdam.The 2009 global food crisis signalled the need for a turning point in the global food systemâ€, she said at the event hosted by the Transnational Institute (TNI), a leading international think tank.
“Modern agriculture, which began in the 1950s, is more resource intensive, very fossil fuel dependent, using fertilisers, and based on massive production. This policy has to change.
“We are already facing a range of challenges. Resource scarcity, increased population, decreasing land availability and accessibility, emerging water scarcity, and soil degradation require us to re-think how best to use our resources for future generations.
Here's a couple threads where I have written more on the issue of productivity by organic vs petrochemical methods:
https://www.helpfulgardener.com/forum/vi ... ld+organic
https://www.helpfulgardener.com/forum/vi ... 10&t=59395
In fact, our current industrial agriculture methods of farming square mile monocultures with huge gasoline-fueled machinery, with ever increasing amounts of herbicidal and insecticidal poisons (which breed resistant super weeds and super bugs) and petroleum derived fertilizers is simply not sustainable. In the long run, the only way to feed the population will be through smaller scale, more sustainable methods. It would help though if we could gain control over runaway population growth. Feeding nine billion people is going to be difficult regardless of methods.
I agree that the current modern farming approach is not good for the planet; there is little doubt there.
However where you say that yields are higher on organic fields, that only seems to tell part of the story. What about the increases in cost, including human resources. Organic produce is more expensive for a reason. With the increase in cost comes a decrease in availability. It is not enough to simply say yields increased, it is not the whole story.
And yes that was my point... the human population on this planet is what is unsustainable. There are simply too many people. Our technology can not sustain this many people with a quality of life without major delitirious effects to the environment and our long term survival as a species.
However where you say that yields are higher on organic fields, that only seems to tell part of the story. What about the increases in cost, including human resources. Organic produce is more expensive for a reason. With the increase in cost comes a decrease in availability. It is not enough to simply say yields increased, it is not the whole story.
And yes that was my point... the human population on this planet is what is unsustainable. There are simply too many people. Our technology can not sustain this many people with a quality of life without major delitirious effects to the environment and our long term survival as a species.
It isn't just people. It is the choices we make. It is more complicated than that. It is not GMO that is the problem.
If the world was not so industrialized and urbanized and dependent on high density farming and packing a lot of animals in a relatively small space. The more affluent a society becomes, the more meat they demand. Agricultural acreage has been shrinking since the start of the industrialized age. More people are being fed on less land. The family farm is no longer the basic unit supplying the market.
Most of the grain and corn grown are to feed cattle, hogs and chickens on factory farms, leaving a huge carbon footprint and contributing more than cars in aggregate to the greenhouse gasses. Think of all the methane released by cows alone. Affluent societies simply eat more meat and processed foods than they require for sustenance and simply consume and waste more than they need to survive.
Unlike those living in rural subsistence communities where the land they live on needs to supply nearly all of their basic needs and the lack of $ and access to modern medicine, and technology limit their population. It is the dichotomy of the haves and have nots. It is the social and ethical problems of the inequities of humankind.
Science and technology has made it possible to raise more livestock and grow more food on less land, but it is not the cause of waste. It is rampant consumerism that drives corporations to produce more than needed today and the mindset or propaganda that people will always want more and not settle for just enough or just what you need. It is probably one of the reasons why obesity is on the rise. The attitude that more is better prevails; burns up resources today to feed the greed. Few people worry about what happens when those resources are exhausted because that is tomorrow's problem. The problem is not so linear and neither will be the solution.
If the world was not so industrialized and urbanized and dependent on high density farming and packing a lot of animals in a relatively small space. The more affluent a society becomes, the more meat they demand. Agricultural acreage has been shrinking since the start of the industrialized age. More people are being fed on less land. The family farm is no longer the basic unit supplying the market.
Most of the grain and corn grown are to feed cattle, hogs and chickens on factory farms, leaving a huge carbon footprint and contributing more than cars in aggregate to the greenhouse gasses. Think of all the methane released by cows alone. Affluent societies simply eat more meat and processed foods than they require for sustenance and simply consume and waste more than they need to survive.
Unlike those living in rural subsistence communities where the land they live on needs to supply nearly all of their basic needs and the lack of $ and access to modern medicine, and technology limit their population. It is the dichotomy of the haves and have nots. It is the social and ethical problems of the inequities of humankind.
Science and technology has made it possible to raise more livestock and grow more food on less land, but it is not the cause of waste. It is rampant consumerism that drives corporations to produce more than needed today and the mindset or propaganda that people will always want more and not settle for just enough or just what you need. It is probably one of the reasons why obesity is on the rise. The attitude that more is better prevails; burns up resources today to feed the greed. Few people worry about what happens when those resources are exhausted because that is tomorrow's problem. The problem is not so linear and neither will be the solution.
it's not that GMO technology is bad, but that it's in the hands of agribusiness. personally, I was hoping for glofish type flowers, with the jellyfish proteins. gene gun, huh? glofish work because fish zygotes have non nuclear DNA. you can actually just squirt some in with a micropipette at the right time, and it'll get assimilated (and likely not expressed) but if you have thousands of trained technicians, the keep trying til you get it will work. still, you'd think they'd have gone for koi, probably worth more. the pink angels look *bad*.